Target Centermass

Category: Politics

  • Sessions Slightly Ahead for Texas Seat

    Texas’ recent redistricting has left two current congressmen, Pete Sessions and Martin Frost, slugging it out against each other in a bitterly-contested affair. A poll released today shows Sessions holding a lead only three weeks before the election.

    U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions is slightly ahead of his Democratic rival, U.S. Rep. Martin Frost, in one of the nation’s most watched congressional races, according to a newspaper poll of likely voters.

    Sessions has 50 percent to Frost’s 44 percent in the survey, which polled 800 likely voters last week for The Dallas Morning News. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent.

    Pollsters randomly selected 32nd Congressional District households with published telephone numbers. The survey was conducted by Iowa-based public opinion firm Selzer & Co.

    Frost, Texas’ most senior congressman, was forced to run in Sessions’ Republican-leaning district after Republicans decimated Frost’s district in off-year political remapping.

    Frost immediately attacked the poll, contending it undersampled hispanics, who represent over a third of the district’s population.

    Representative of the animosity shown throughout this campaign, the Frost camp called Sessions a hypocrite for streaking thirty years ago as a college freshman.

    Democrats today circulated old newspaper clippings of a 1974 college streaking stunt staged by hundreds of students at Southwest Texas State University, including an 18-year-old Pete Sessions.

    Sessions, a conservative Republican who wrote a column condemning Janet Jackson’s nude display during this year’s Super Bowl halftime performance, apparently bared his bottom with about 300 male and female students on the streets of San Marcos during the two-night rampage.

    ….

    Sessions’ campaign isn’t denying the congressman’s public nudeness.

    “Congressman Sessions’ old school days are long gone,” said Sessions’ spokesman Chris Homan. “He recognizes it as an immature action of an 18-year-old college freshman.”

    But Frost’s campaign is holding Sessions’ bare bod to the fire.

    “Pete Sessions exposed himself to children and strangers,” said Frost spokesman Justin Kitsch. “He’s exposed himself as a hypocrite as well.”

    Sessions’ spokesman dismissed the comparison of Sessions’ juvenile acts to those of Jackson, who revealed her breast in front of millions of Super Bowl watchers at the finale of a halftime performance with singer Justin Timberlake.

    This isn’t exactly the kind of exposure the four-term Republican wants in the final three weeks of a tight race with Frost, a 13-term Democrat. The two incumbents are battling for Republican-leaning Dallas area District 32 in what is expected to be the most expensive race in the country.

    There has been much silliness of this sort, as well as more serious allegations, by both sides in this contest. However, decades-old college frivolity is not going to alter Session’s poll lead. As a resident of a nearby district who actually works within the confines of the 32nd, I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that Sessions will carry the day on Nov. 2.

  • Bush Campaign to Base Ad on Kerry Terror Quote

    The Bush camp is planning on using John Kerry’s own words against him, as well they should.

    President Bush’s campaign announced Sunday its plans to use as the basis of a new commercial a quote from an 8,000-word New York Times Magazine article about Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry.

    The parsing prompted the Kerry camp to retort that the soon-to-be-released Bush ad was another example of the president’s campaign taking words out of context to create a misleading impression.

    Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! The Kerryites are concerned about a quote being taken out of context. Where is their concern as Kerry and his attack-puppy sidekick repeatedly take Vice-President Cheney’s words about the danger of another attack so out of context that they intentionally, completely change his meaning? After all, the Veep never said a Kerry election would increase the danger of a terrorist attack; rather, he argued it would increase the danger of such an attack being responded to in a pre-9/11 manner, a valid consideration.

    Are the Dems right in whining about context?

    The article, a largely analytical cover story in the magazine, says the interviewer asked Kerry “what it would take for Americans to feel safe again.”

    ”We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance,” the article states as the Massachusetts senator’s reply.

    ”As a former law enforcement person, I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn’t on the rise. It isn’t threatening people’s lives every day, and fundamentally, it’s something that you continue to fight, but it’s not threatening the fabric of your life.”

    Whatever part of Kerry’s statement you parse or take in it’s entirety, it is hard not to see an actual substantiation of Cheney’s point. Without victory over Islamist terrorism, those terrorists will never be just a nuisance. With an attitude of law enforcement and diplomacy as our primary weapons, that victory cannot be attained. Nor can it be attained if we insist that the focus of the war is Osama bin Laden instead of the greater whole of the radical Islamist movement.

    A Kerry spokesman defended his candidate against the substance of the charges.

    Reuters reported that the new Bush commercial’s script asks “How can Kerry protect us when he doesn’t understand the threat?”

    Kerry campaign spokesman Phil Singer called the Republican charges “absolutely ridiculous.”

    “This is yet another example of the Bush campaign taking John Kerry’s words out of context, and then blowing it up into something that is nothing,” he said.

    “The whole article is about how John Kerry recognizes that the war on terror requires a multipronged approach. It’s not just the military aspect, but you need diplomacy to be able to enlist your allies. The Bush people have never understood that. John Kerry has always said that terrorism is the No. 1 threat to the U.S.”

    Unfortunately, Kerry has not always said that terrorism is our top threat. From the first Bush-Kerry debate:

    LEHRER: New question, two minutes, Senator Kerry.

    If you are elected president, what will you take to that office thinking is the single most serious threat to the national security to the United States?

    KERRY: Nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation.

    Now, I’ll be fair. Kerry tied this into terrorism, though not exclusively. He also tied it to the North Korea’s nuclear ambitions when he made the following statement in his continuing answer:

    And part of that leadership is sending the right message to places like North Korea.

    Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn’t make sense.

    You talk about mixed messages. We’re telling other people, “You can’t have nuclear weapons,” but we’re pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.

    Not this president. I’m going to shut that program down, and we’re going to make it clear to the world we’re serious about containing nuclear proliferation.

    In Kerry’s mind, the greatest danger the U.S. faces is nuclear proliferation, not Islamist terrorism. There may be some validity to this, but two points should be considered. First, it is contrary to the statement of the Kerry spokesman. Second, it is curious that Kerry’s answer to our alleged greatest danger is the policing up of known nuclear materials while cancelling our efforts to build a potential deterrent to future nuke sources.

    This point puts Kerry perfectly into context. It supports the Bush campaign’s questioning of Kerry’s view of the threat of terrorism based on his own quotes in the Times Magazine. It jibes with his inability to take a lasting stance (outside of hindsight) in favor of any offensive U.S. action, beginning at least with Viet Nam and continuing through today. Finally, it dovetails nicely with his support of a unilateral freeze in the ’80s in the face of another threat. Simply put, John Kerry does not understand our enemies, nor is he resolute in facing them in any manner other than to rely upon others and reduce our own efforts.

  • The Best Debate Live-Blogging

    From somebody who didn’t even watch (and justified it well):

    I’m sure Bush kicked Kerry’s ass all over the stage if you give a farthing about terrorists and killing those who undeniably and without quarter want to kill you. Outside of that, who could possibly give a flying eff at a rolling donut about stem cells or deficits or the opinions of the French or Germans? Western civilization is at war. If those dipsticks don’t care to defend it, that’s their call and their shame. But don’t tell me America can’t do it, not when we’ve got the Aussies, the Brits, the Poles and 30 more freedom-loving countries on our side.

    Holy crap, Scott, you are the man. If the world goes to hell and Bush loses, I’m nominating you for President of the reborn Republic of Texas.

  • Post-Debate Aside on Defeatist Terminology

    While reading through other sites for their debate opinions, I came across this line from Blogs of War‘s live blogging by John Little:

    8:20pm CST – Is it just me or is “Win the peace” one of the most annoying phrases of all time.

    Well, I’ll rank it right up there with “exit strategy,” a phrase I’ve stated my opinion on previously.

    EDIT: Yes, you can plan to “win the peace,” you can plan on every single contingency. However, war is chaos and perfect planning for peace would require paralysis of action. The same with having an exit strategy short of absolute victory. Win the campaign, deal with the actual results; win the war, achieve the established goals and make the peace and exit strategy desired.

  • Bush-Kerry 2: The Awakening

    My thought after the first debate was style (Kerry) vs. substance (Bush). After the conclusion of this debate, I thought both improved in their weaker areas. I felt Bush’s style improvements were dramatic in that he seemed awake. Kerry held some more substance, but he’s still on the wrong side of too many of my views. I’m quite certain that Kerry has a plan to change that. If not, he’s got a plan to address the lack of the other plan.

    Slight Bush win, because Bush wasn’t just President Bush tonight, he was also Dubya. And Dubya plays well in the vast distance between New England and California. It should be noted that, at this point, a slight Bush win is a huge Bush win; it’s the equivalent of grabbing back homefield advantage in a playoff series.

    I typed up a few questions that I want to run against the transcript, so a more thourough look later.

  • Da Man is Back!

    The first blog that made me consider the life of the blogosphere is back from hiatus.

    Go. Read.

    Thanks to Scott for catching the resurrection.

  • VP Debate Postmortem

    I promised it so here it is.

    After reviewing the transcript, Cheney won. Simple as that, and not surprising at all. Cheney edged on the domestic latter half and dominated on the security issues.

    I’ll keep this post brief because my timing sucks. In retrospect, I probably should’ve gone with the nom de keyboard of the DelayedPundit.

    The reason I give the VP a decided victory is simple: Kerry and Edwards are wrong about the war against Islamist terror. When they talk about the centrality of bin Laden, when they show their blinders allowing nothing but a focus on bin Laden, when they condemn any other effort in the war that does not expressly address bin Laden, they are wrong. Yes, Osama bin Laden attacked us. All parties are interested in busting his ass. Apparently only Bush-Cheney are interested in stopping other reiterations of bin Laden by attacking the Islamist culture and offering the alternative of freedom and democracy. Do Kerry and Edwards honestly think we would be magically safe from the Islamist bastards if Osama’s head was stuck atop a star-spangled pike? If so, they are wrong and American lives could be the cost. That is the reality of a post-9/11 world.

  • House Shreds Draft Legislation

    In a maneuver to quash the current draft rumors, the GOP leaders in the House of Representatives forced the proposed draft legislation to face a crushing vote.

    With the Internet abuzz with rumors that a military draft would be reinstated after the November election, House Republicans yesterday forced a surprise vote on the issue and blamed Democrats for scaring young people.

    “We’ll … see who trusts the volunteer military and who is practicing the dishonest politics of fear,” said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in moving to get lawmakers on record on a bill by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y. to revive the draft.

    ….

    The final vote was two “yeas” and 402 “nays”, with 29 members not voting.

    Even the primary sponsor of the legislation rallied against it.

    Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) did something a little unusual yesterday. First he protested when Republican leadership scheduled his own bill for a vote.

    Then he sent out a letter encouraging his Democratic colleagues to vote against it.

    Rangel’s bill, which the leadership had placed on the suspension calendar, would create a national-service draft under which all 18- to 26-year-olds would serve in the military or perform two years of national service as determined by the president. Rangel has been advocating a draft for several years, but he argued yesterday that the bill was too important for the suspension calendar, “which is reserved for non-controversial items,” he said in a statement.

    Bills on the suspension calendar cannot be amended on the floor and require two-thirds of the House to clear the chamber.

    Rangel accused Republicans of using his bill to assuage fears that President Bush had plans to reinstate the draft, stating, “The Republican leadership decision to place the draft legislation on the suspension Calendar is a political maneuver to kill rumors of the President’s intention to reinstate the draft after the November election.”

    He went on to urge Democrats running for reelection to vote no.

    “I am voting no, because my bill deserves serious consideration,” his statement continued.

    Rangel is wrong and his crap does not deserve even light-hearted consideration. His support for a draft is based exclusively on class politics, and he gave absolutely zero consideration to the best interests of the military when he proposed this legislation.

    As I pointed out when the Kerry-Edwards campaign first co-opted the internet draft rumors as part of their anti-Bush innuendo, the draft may well be needed again one day, possibly even in the war against the Islamist bastards. However, it is not needed now and there is never a justification for using fear tactics to politicize the military or our national defense interests. Rangel, Kerry and Edwards have been equally disgusting in this affair.

  • Kerry Says Franco-German Troops Unlikely

    John Kerry has finally admitted what should’ve already been known — despite all of his global support, diplomatic skills and internationalistic stances, he simply would not be able to get French and German boots dusty in Iraq.

    Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry conceded yesterday that he probably will not be able to convince France and Germany to contribute troops to Iraq if he is elected president.

    The Massachusetts senator has made broadening the coalition trying to stabilize Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign, but at a town hall meeting yesterday, he said he knows other countries won’t trade their soldiers’ lives for those of U.S. troops.

    “Does that mean allies are going to trade their young for our young in body bags? I know they are not. I know that,” he said.

    Asked about that statement later, Mr. Kerry said, “When I was referring to that, I was really talking about Germany and France and some of the countries that had been most restrained.”

    “Other countries are obviously more willing to accept responsibilities,” he added, as he took questions from reporters in a school yard in Tipton, Iowa.

    Let’s briefly review. The Kerry campaign insults the sacrifices of the friendly Iraqi troops and police by not counting their losses with those of the coalition. Kerry cannot deliver the in-country aid of our French and German “allies.” Kerry personally has insulted our current allies, calling them the coerced and the bribed.

    Given this track record, how would Kerry get more allies? His plan apparently is to actually coerce and bribe them. Here, from the opening Bush-Kerry debate, is what he said should have been done:

    If the president had shown the patience to go through another round of resolution, to sit down with those leaders, say, “What do you need, what do you need now, how much more will it take to get you to join us?” we’d be in a stronger place today.

    There you have it, Kerry’s diplomatic magic — do what he has accused Bush of doing. And it ain’t going to be good enouch for Germany or France.

  • Cheney Convicts Kerry And Edwards

    I’m not quite sure, but it seems that David Frum is at least a slight lean towards Dick Cheney’s debate performance over John Edwards.

    Ok, just caught debate rerun on CNN. What can one say about John Edwards’s performance? He certainly did not make Al Gore’s error in 1996: With his repeated and worshipful descriptions of John Kerry — not to mention Edwards’s moist good looks — you have to say that he would fill the role of First Lady much better than Teresa Heinz is likely to do. It would all have been very impressive — if Cheney’s scalpel had not so swiftly and mercilessly sliced Edwards’s living liver out of his body, impaled it quivering on a stick, and paraded it before Edwards’ soulful eyes before the poor man expired.

    Ouch!